Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McAleer): I welcome Liz Kelly from the Mushroom Producer Organisation; Andrew Mulligan from Commercial Mushroom Growers UK; and David Dallas from Northway Mushrooms. I invite you to brief the Committee.

Ms Liz Kelly (Mushroom Producer Organisation): Thank you, Chairperson and Committee members, for the opportunity to address you today on behalf of Northern Ireland's mushroom growers. Northern Ireland's horticulture sector has been underfunded, and it is at risk unless urgent interventions are delivered. Our document outlines to the Committee why the Agriculture Bill should be suspended immediately and why the current fruit and vegetables aid scheme (FVAS) should be extended until a suitable, ring-fenced replacement grant scheme can be identified for the sector.

I will give you an overview of the mushroom sector in Northern Ireland. It makes £42 million in farmgate sales per annum, representing circa 40% of all horticultural output. It places 19,300 tonnes of fresh mushrooms in the UK market per annum. Ninety-two per cent of all mushroom producers in Northern Ireland are part of a producer organisation (PO) structure. The mushroom sector is estimated to be worth a total of £64 million per annum. The sector is a significant employer, with over 1,000 people employed in the industry. The sector provides 10% of all mushrooms and 40% of organic mushrooms in the UK.

The current fruit and veg aid scheme provides match funding for investment in facilities, employment of specialist staff, professionalisation of production planning, growing a business, marketing operations and research and innovation projects. Via the scheme’s structures, growers can direct investment where it will have the greatest impact. Growers further demonstrate the value of co-funded investments by contributing half of the project costs themselves, with the other half coming from match funding from government. That funding is managed by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA). The Northern Ireland annual funding budget is approximately £1·6 million and gives growers security of uncapped funding for three to five years.

The fruit and veg aid scheme offers a range of benefits to the taxpayer. It allows for profitable farming that furnishes economic growth, value for money and increased employment in rural communities. It promotes food security by reducing reliance on imported produce, thereby increasing the availability of produce, encouraging price competitiveness and boosting horticultural infrastructure. It also promotes vast development in agri-tech and innovation in the sector, facilitating high-capital investments. Furthermore, it encourages nature-friendly farming that is adapting to climate change.

In 2024, the EU revamped the fruit and veg aid scheme rules to make it more attractive than the current scheme that is operated in the UK. EU POs now have access to seven-year operational programmes, which guarantees funding for seven years; a minimum of 4·1% of value of marketed production (VMP) guaranteed — your revenue — which can rise to 5% for transnational producer organisations and by a further 0·5% if targets are obtained, for example in environmental and R&D measures; and 50% and 80% in grant funding for environmental and R&D actions.

In Ireland, Teagasc is promoting the fruit and veg aid scheme. The Scottish Government announced last week that they are continuing with the fruit and veg aid scheme for a further three years, and new programmes are to be submitted before 15 September 2025. They wrote to their POs this week to advise them of the value of the scheme, and they will be conducting a consultation this year on how it can be improved.

Regarding Northern Ireland’s progression on the replacement of the fruit and veg aid scheme, the Northern Ireland agriculture policy contains the objective to double horticulture from £100 million to £200 million over the next five to seven years. That policy outlined that the next step was to develop a suitable support programme through pilot programmes. That was to be done by focusing on group cooperative structures, the production of crops with good economic potential and working in consultation with relevant subsectors of the industry.

The fruit and veg aid scheme is exactly what DAERA is looking for to meet the above objectives: a collaborative approach to increase growth in the sector and improve synergies. Instead of funding and supporting the fruit and veg aid scheme, the horticulture sector has been directed towards three new schemes that are under development: sustainable sector growth groups, an innovation driver and support scheme and a new growers' academy, which are in development. The initial briefing we have received on the three schemes suggests that they are of limited value to the mushroom sector. It has to be said that they were developed with no consultation with the mushroom sector. Also, we query how effective they will be at delivering the wider sector objectives and their cost-effectiveness. Therefore, no suitable replacement for the fruit and veg aid scheme has been identified, particularly for the mushroom sector. Additionally, indications are that if the Bill is passed, existing funding could be removed from horticulture and given to other sectors or diluted within the horticulture sector itself.

There are consequences from enacting the Agriculture Bill without a ring-fenced, suitable fruit and veg aid scheme. Clause 1 removes the requirement for all eligible claims to be funded, which will leave growers with no future security in the industry. The word "discretionary" gives no confidence to the industry; it does not allow for future planning, and it leaves Northern Ireland at a significant disadvantage in comparison with our competitors. Without guaranteed ring-fenced funding at the same level, the Department will not be able to deliver on the objectives of future NI agriculture policy, and, due to the level of funding that our competitors will receive, the whole Northern Ireland horticulture sector could become uncompetitive and diminished.

There will be direct costs of the delay, including staffing issues in our organisations; the postponement of some planned expansion investments; and industry confidence being at an all-time low, with growers considering closing their businesses due to increasing uncertainty. There are other issues, including a lack of clarity on where funding will come from if Northern Irish growers remain in English-registered POs; added stress to our growers due to there being no guaranteed future funding after 31 December 2025; and increased business pressures due to competitors having long-term grant funding strategies. There are also issues with food security and the carbon footprint of producing food from farm to fork.

As for our recommendations, the three POs currently operate within the existing scheme and believe that it is fantastic for Northern Ireland horticulture, particularly the mushroom sector: it delivers value for money and reduces the overall administrative burden on Departments. At this point in time, it is too late to replace the current fruit and vegetable aid scheme before 1 Jan 2026. We recommend that DAERA pauses the Bill and prioritises the continuation of the existing scheme for a further three years, similar to what Scotland recently announced. That three-year period will allow for a review of the scheme to be completed and, if needed, developed with industry consultation. Thank you very much for your time.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Thank you very much, Liz. Your main fear is that the Agriculture Bill will make the continuation of the existing scheme discretionary. You fear that support could be discontinued beyond the mandate. Is that correct?

Mr Andrew Mulligan (Commercial Mushroom Growers UK): Yes. That is a large part of it. Obviously, it is an EU scheme. After it became retained law in the UK, it seemed to become a devolved matter. It is a concern for us that the funding will become discretionary. In England, the announcement was made about closing the scheme in 2023. Our frustration is that we are now in February 2025, and there are no details of any potential replacement for the scheme. As we know, a Bill is going through that makes the funding discretionary. That offers no security to the mushroom sector or the horticulture sector in Northern Ireland. During that time, the EU has developed its scheme and moved forward, so we are in a difficult situation.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McAleer): In her presentation, Liz said that the new scheme was not co-designed with the sector. What engagement have you had with the Department? Have you brought these matters directly to it?

Mr Mulligan: Do you mean engagement on the three new schemes that we are being directed to?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McAleer): I mean your concerns and proposals. What engagement have you had on those with the Department, and what messaging have you got back?

Mr Mulligan: The main message is that the Department is reviewing the fruit and vegetables aid scheme but that it needs to introduce a Bill to give it better control of its own destiny, if you want to call it that. That is where we are now. We are now in February; everybody else is planning ahead and submitting their programmes for the next five or seven years, but we have no idea whether we will have a scheme.

Ms Kelly: The Minister and DAERA have advised us to look towards the new schemes because they will have something for the mushroom sector. We have not had a proper consultation with the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE), but we had one meeting and a phone call with it, and it says that, realistically, there is nothing in the schemes for the mushroom sector. David, you know more about the three schemes.

Mr David Dallas (Northway Mushrooms): We had no consultation on the schemes. It is our understanding that they are being promoted by CAFRE as part of its knowledge transfer service for learning and development. That is fine, but they are no replacement for the FVAS. They are CAFRE-orientated schemes for its knowledge transfer services.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McAleer): That almost echoes a debate that we had in the Chamber on Tuesday about the Farming for the Generations scheme, whereby the Department proposes to end one scheme before we see the shape of a new one. What do you know about the three new schemes? In your correspondence, Liz, you said that you felt that they were of limited value. What do you know about them?

Mr Dallas: This is not to put down the schemes, but, from meetings that we have had, we think that they are small-scale. For example, there is a mentoring scheme and perhaps some small-scale funding for business start-ups and diversification. They are not aimed at supporting commercial production like the FVAS. I do not want to put down the schemes, because they have their place and will, no doubt, deliver on their objectives, but they are not a replacement for a commercial-level support mechanism. They have a different objective.

Ms Kelly: There appears to be nothing in them for capital items or staffing, which are two of the main aspects of the fruit and veg aid scheme.

Mr Mulligan: It goes back to your point, Declan, that we are getting rid of a scheme but we have no replacement for it. We do not know where we are going. It is very frustrating for us, sitting here. We do not know what is ahead of us. We could fall off a cliff at the end of this year, because we will not be able to compete. The mushroom sector in Northern Ireland has to be clear: it is highly likely that we will disappear.

Miss McIlveen: I am concerned and disappointed to hear that there has not been consultation with you about the development of the schemes because the Minister prides himself on co-design, and talks about it regarding various departmental policies and programmes. Did you meet him or was it through correspondence that you discussed this issue?

Mr Mulligan: We met him to voice the concerns that we are voicing today.

Miss McIlveen: During those conversations, did you get any sense that you may be brought in to assist? If the new schemes are in development, there should still be an opportunity to amend or adjust them to meet the needs of the industry. Did you get any sense that that might happen from your meeting with the Minister?

Mr Mulligan: No.

Mr Dallas: Nothing specific.

Mr Mulligan: Nothing specific.

Miss McIlveen: You talked about Scotland. Did Scotland go in the same direction and then pull back?

Mr Mulligan: I believe that they were undertaking a review similar to the one by DAERA, and they made their decision. Obviously, they value the scheme, and decided to continue it for another three-year period, during which they will undertake a further consultation to try to improve it.

Miss McIlveen: Was Scotland in the early development stages of a scheme before pulling back from it or had they not got as far as our Department?

Mr Mulligan: Not that we are aware of.

Miss McIlveen: You talked about a cliff edge and not being competitive. What does that mean in real terms from a business perspective?

Mr Dallas: One thing about horticulture is that it is very competitive, and it is different from the land-based schemes. Beef and dairy are constrained by area, so there is a bit of a balance in the competition between the North of Ireland, the South of Ireland and Scotland, although competition does exist. Margins in the horticultural supply chain are very small, and a slight difference with the retailers can completely shift that balance in favour of your competitor.

Also, competitors can ramp up. Basically, there is no constraint on horticultural production, for example in protected edibles like mushrooms, except for the amount of investment that you put in. With lack of investment in Northern Ireland, if we see a shift in competitiveness in favour of the South of Ireland, Scotland or, for that matter, in Poland, very quickly the whole supply chain balance can shift. That whole supply chain of retail multiples will move to those sources because they can increase their production base easily and quickly.

A very small imbalance in competitiveness and in the cost to the production base, plus the potential for the new schemes in Ireland and Scotland for ongoing investment in, for example, new facilities and technologies, will quickly see the Northern Ireland mushroom sector become uncompetitive, because the sales will just move away, and the sector could quickly diminish. Once those sales go, you will not get them back; they will be gone.

In horticulture, we work in a sector that is much more dynamic and competitive. That is why it is important that we maintain our competitiveness because, if we do not, we will quickly see our customers moving away.

Mr Mulligan: In essence, we are competing with ROI and Poland for the same market. We have a scheme that could end at the end of the year, so there is a lot of nervousness within the industry in Northern Ireland, whereas the schemes in Southern Ireland and Poland have been revamped and contain good incentives for environmental sustainability and those types of actions. We are trying to compete with that.

The mushroom industry is moving into an automated phase, so in the next two years we are probably going to see a lot of automation in the industry. None of that automation has been trialled in Northern Ireland; it has all been done in ROI, Poland and other areas. That, in itself, gives you an indication of where things are going. They are ahead of us now, but they will continue to gain further ground on us if we do not at least match what they are doing.

Miss McIlveen: What concerned me about your presentation is that, while the Committee would normally look to amend or tweak legislation after hearing from witnesses, what is essentially being suggested is that the Department withdraws the Bill in its entirety. That is concerning.

Mr Mulligan: We accept the point that the Department needs to control its destiny, so we understand the Bill, but we are asking that it be paused until we have some details on the new scheme for the mushroom sector. If the existing scheme is going to be extended, or we know what is going to happen with it, we can accept the Bill's passage. However, to push the Bill through when we do not know what is happening will not work for us.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you.

Mr McGlone: The situation is pretty much set out in black and white. It is a pity that we left the EU, is it not?

You mentioned the horticulture sectors. How have you liaised with other elements of the horticulture cohort to find out what advantages or disadvantages they see in what is being proposed? Have you spoken to them about that?

Mr Mulligan: In Northern Ireland, the biggest uptake of the fruit and vegetable aid scheme is from the mushroom sector. Some of the other sectors have not taken up the scheme here for various reasons. In the UK, there has been better uptake of the scheme by the other sectors.

Mr McGlone: I am not asking you to speak for them, but can you give us any insights into why they have not taken up the scheme?

Mr Dallas: We did quite a bit of work with strawberry and mushroom growers. As was identified in the 2022-23 strategy review, with the possible exception of some field veg and mushrooms, the horticulture sectors in Northern Ireland are very small and fragmented. They need to work together for the good of the supply chain. That is where producer organisations come to the fore, with integration and cooperation between sectors to develop sales.

On the question of the way forward for producer organisations, we feel that there is a lot more to be done to develop Northern Ireland horticulture. That was recognised in the sectors. Unfortunately, since that review report came out, that has not been done. At the time of that report, there was quite a good view of producer organisations to develop that. Since then, however — this is where we are worried about the potential removal of the FVAS, which is linked to producer organisations — nothing has been done to develop it: that objective has just stopped and, as far as we can see, nothing more has been done on it.

On your question about other sectors such as the soft fruit sector, it is there to be done for them. Northern Ireland only supplies about 5% of its own soft fruit. Our PO started the work of talking to other growers. That got so far, but it is now kind of in disarray because, for the past two years, we have not even known whether the scheme will be continued.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that. I was looking to know whether there is a collegiate group or umbrella group of horticulture producer organisations that work together, even if informally, on the proposals. Maybe there is not.

Mr Dallas: No, not really.

Mr Mulligan: Not in Northern Ireland, although there is in the UK. We are part of a wider sector group in the UK. One problem that Northern Ireland has faced with the fruit and veg aid scheme is that it is an EU legacy scheme — it is now a DEFRA scheme, if you want to call it that — that is administered by the RPA, so there is nobody on the ground in Northern Ireland to push and promote it or talk to those people about it. We have some fault in that, because we have benefited from the scheme but have not been promoting it. That is one of the major failings here. In the ROI, Teagasc actively promotes the scheme. We sent a link to the Committee of a recent video that shows how much Teagasc is promoting the scheme in Ireland. We do not have that up here, which is a major failing in the system.

Mr McGlone: There is mention of three new schemes. The witnesses are a bit unsure about their viability and how they might work, if at all, for their sector. I would also like a wee bit of clarification on what you said, Liz, about staffing requirements or support for staffing. Please expand a wee bit on that too. I am anxious to tease that out because we are being asked to move to and support the new schemes. You are saying that you are, at the very least, unsure about what those schemes will render, and, at the most, you are saying, "These schemes are not going to be effective for us at all", if I have heard you right. To get a clear picture, it might be helpful to hear from others in the horticulture sectors about how they perceive those schemes will work or not work for them.

Ms Kelly: The staffing issue is within our POs. We are losing staff, as is the RPA. We do not know what is happening at the end of December, so people, with a realistic mindset, say, "We don't have permanent jobs, so we'll just move on when we get an opportunity". We find it hard to fill those positions. In the RPA, audits of in-year claims have been delayed due to that. The impact is ongoing. In my PO, we have six harvest managers, and we had six QA managers, but we are down to five QA managers because we have not been able to fill one position. The current scheme allows for highly qualified staff to go in and assist growers. The growers love the assistance. Last year, all our QAs and harvest managers had training from Teagasc. They took that to the growers, who were able to expand their learning and pass it on to other workers on their farms. That is one element of it.

You touched on other sectors. Andrew and I are in the PO steering group, which includes the UK POs. We have spoken to other sectors. They assisted DAERA by explaining, on a video call, how the fruit and veg aid scheme has worked for berries —

Mr Dallas: Soft fruit —

Ms Kelly: — soft fruit and salads. We have been working with the other sectors, and the scheme works over there. The main element of it that could have been developed further in Northern Ireland is promotion. It was an EU scheme, so that was left to the EU. When we came away from the EU, there was no promotion of the scheme. If there had been more promotion of the scheme in Northern Ireland, there could have been more POs. As you can see, in the mushroom sector, the majority of growers are in the PO because we see the value of it.

Mr McGlone: OK. Thank you.

Mr Dallas: To clarify, we are not denigrating the CAFRE schemes. There are knowledge transfer programmes in the new sustainable agriculture programme that will be of value, but it is as though those are being provided and the basic payment scheme is being removed.

Mr McGlone: Yes.

Mr Dallas: They are slightly different in their objectives. In the horticulture sectors, our commercial support funding, which was from the FVAS, is potentially being removed, leaving the knowledge transfer schemes, which we feel are not a like-for-like replacement.

Mr McGlone: You need stability for your business.

Mr Dallas: We do.

Ms Murphy: I came into this with one or two questions, and I now have about six scattered over a few pages. Have the three new schemes been sold to you as a direct replacement? When did you become aware that new schemes were being developed?

Mr Dallas: We had a meeting with Kieran Lavelle, and that was when he first mooted, quite informally, that new schemes were being developed. To be clear, at that meeting, he and I agreed that this was not a replacement for the commercial support scheme. I do not think we have really had any involvement with the development of the schemes. Other aspects of horticulture might have — we are not aware — but certainly within the mushroom sector, which is the biggest sector, we have had no involvement with CAFRE on the development of those schemes.

Mr Mulligan: We have to be clear that the final details of the schemes have not been released yet. There are some information days coming up very shortly on those. Based on our initial conversations with CAFRE, we have been directed towards those schemes.

Ms Kelly: I also sent an email to Kieran Lavelle asking if we could meet to discuss these schemes to try to make sure that they were suited for the mushroom sector. The feedback I got was that they would not be in a position to discuss this with us until the schemes were finalised.

Ms Murphy: I suppose you are left in a situation where they are willing to engage and consult after the fact.

Mr Mulligan: There is no base payment for the mushroom sector. We do not get any land-based payment. There is no safety net or anything at all. That is another important point.

Ms Murphy: Thank you, Andrew. With regard to the lack of engagement that you have had with CAFRE to date, has it indicated, at any stage, how far along it is with the development of these schemes?

Mr Mulligan: It is very close to finalising them, because the information is due to be released. Some of the briefings are starting next week, so it is obviously very close.

Ms Murphy: I have just one more point about the schemes, and I will not dwell on them any more after this; it is more of a question out of curiosity. How long has it been from the start of the development of these schemes until now? Has this been taking place over six months or 12 months? I know that you are not from CAFRE or the Department, but have you any insight into that?

Mr Mulligan: It is difficult to answer that, but I suppose 12 or 18 months. We cannot give a decent answer to that, but we are aware that it has been at least 12 months.

Ms Murphy: You mentioned automation earlier and the disadvantage that you are at, lagging behind the South and Poland. Specifically with the South and Poland, what type of automation developments are they researching at the minute? Have they implemented anything at the minute, to your knowledge?

Mr Mulligan: There are trials ongoing for the automated harvesting of mushrooms, which is a massive step forward for the mushroom sector because it is all done by hand at the moment. There is not just one. There are two or three different technologies out there.

Mr Dallas: One solution is being developed, engineering-wise, in Northern Ireland at Gilford, but the actual trial is being carried out in the South of Ireland because I do not think any of our growers want to commit to that type of expense without any assurance.

Mr Mulligan: Not without a clear plan. They want to do it, they want to invest and embrace automation, but it is quite expensive and will take a lot of match funding. This is not a subsidy scheme; it is a match funding scheme. I am probably repeating myself, but there is no subsidy. Whatever you get, you are matching. It is very well designed in that regard. They are willing to do that but, until they have some security for the future, it is difficult to do it.

Ms Murphy: I totally respect that point. Just a final question about the call on the Minister. I know you have had some engagement with him around this. In any engagement that you have had, have you made a direct call to him to either pause or scrap this Bill in its totality?

Ms Kelly: No. To be honest, we have discussed the Bill. We believed that DAERA would try and extend the fruit and veg aid scheme. We sat down two weeks ago and read the research paper on the Bill, and we were quite shocked. Realistically speaking, the three POs have had very busy days, like yourselves. Trying to get time to deal with other elements of things like Bills is not on our day-to-day list. We have been realistically focusing our resources on trying to extend the scheme in England and here. That is where we were pushing until we had to reply to — was it the consultation?

Mr Mulligan: It was the consultation on the document.

Ms Kelly: It was at that point that we realised how dramatic it could be for the mushroom industry, specifically the industry in Northern Ireland.

Mr Mulligan: We raised concerns about the term "discretionary", because we are concerned about it, as we should be.

Ms Kelly: We mentioned that at our previous meeting here.

Mr Mulligan: We mentioned it there as well.

Mr Dallas: We were aware that there might be a need. We thought that, in parallel, we would now be discussing or have discussed a suitable commercial replacement to the FVAS. The only thing that appears to be happening is this Bill, which gives the Department the power to stop any support. Apart from the CAFRE proposals about its programmes —

Ms Murphy: There is no commercial support.

Mr Dallas: — we have had no assurance or even an indication that anything is coming down the pipeline for us.

Mr Mulligan: We have been told constantly that no decision has been made to end the fruit and vegetable aid scheme in Northern Ireland, but no decision has been made to extend it either.

Mr Blair: Thanks, all of you. Some of the points that I was going to raise have been answered already, but here are, as I hope you will understand, a couple of areas of uncertainty for me that perhaps you can clarify.

At the outset, I need to make it clear that I think that the Committee can help to clarify the consultation piece and to get a clear steer from the Department on where it is and what is happening. However, on that point, you said that there was no consultation, but I also heard that there were meetings with the Minister and the Department. You have just said that you discussed the Bill. What is the gap between there being no consultation and there being meetings and discussions about the Bill with the Minister? I am not clear on that.

Mr Mulligan: The gap relates to the scheme itself. We have the Bill, but —

Mr Blair: Not the detail.

Mr Mulligan: — not the detail of the scheme. Yes, we are aware of the Bill and the process that it is going through, but our problem is that we do not know whether the scheme is going to be extended or replaced. If so, what will it be replaced by? We are pointed towards the three separate schemes, but we are not sure whether any of them will fit for us. We are told that they will not. It is the level of uncertainty. We never had an opportunity to discuss a replacement scheme. Again, it is difficult to discuss a replacement scheme when no decision has been made to scrap the existing scheme. [Inaudible.]

Mr Mulligan: It is really the uncertainty.

Mr Blair: I am not being deliberately forensic; I am trying to get the thing clear in my mind. I want to ask your thoughts on the variation in or discretionary aspect of any forthcoming scheme. I have mentioned this before, and it is important to mention it while you are here. Do you accept that the sector might need some discretionary measures based on weather patterns that might affect one area of the sector more than another? One producer could be impacted more than another in one year, whether that is due to the nature of their work or their geographic location, and the following year, another part of the sector might need more support, which did not have it the year before. Do you see a need for discretion to deal with changing weather patterns and market trends? That flexibility might be needed for the benefit of all of you in the sector.

Ms Kelly: I think —.

Mr Dallas: That is a good point. Certainly, yes, those are all good reasons to have that term in the Bill, but it could also mean that we do not get anything. As Andrew said, this is the problem: it is very open-ended, and no clarity is being given to the horticulture sector about what is happening. We do not want to get hung up on the wording, because, as you highlighted, there might be valid reasons for the Bill or parts of it. If we look at it as the whole, our issue is that we have the Bill but no visibility or indication of what it refers to.

Mr Blair: OK.

Finally — again, this is for clarification — I fully understand your interest in the schemes elsewhere, such as in the Republic of Ireland, for sustainability support, automation and the host of other things for which there is support. If we are to compare with those and aspire to do the same, is there not a contradiction in seeking to delay a new Bill for a number of years? Your presentation states that it should be delayed for a period of years. Surely that would prevent any chance of those things coming forward as part of the new arrangements. Is that not the case?

Mr Mulligan: We suggest that the scheme does not need to be extended in Northern Ireland because there is no plan to stop it. We suggest that it continue for another three-year period, in which we are allowed to review and improve it where we can.

Mr Blair: Are you not also saying that, in the existing scheme, there is not the support for the automation and the —

Mr Mulligan: No, not at all.

Mr Blair: — sectoral support that —?

Mr Mulligan: Sorry, that is definitely not the case. There are better rates of funding, if you want to call them that, in the new scheme for automation, sustainability and environmental-type actions. That is already there in the existing scheme; it is just that the funding rates are slightly better. We want the scheme to continue, and we want to work with DAERA to try to improve it where we can, by which we mean that there are certain areas in which we could make it more Northern Ireland-specific.

Ms Kelly: Our biggest fear is that the Bill will basically stop the fruit and veg aid scheme in Northern Ireland, which would mean that the money would just disappear for the horticulture sector and we would remain uncompetitive. Realistically, that would, over the next 10 years, result in the closure of every mushroom grower, which would mean that you would lose 40% of your horticulture sector. We have already had conversations with our growers. One of my growers is talking about closing their doors. That is 100,000 tons of mushrooms gone, based just on all of the other issues. I am trying to get them to remain open. Other growers are saying, "If we do not get fruit and veg aid funding, we'll work with what we have, but we'll not be able to compete once automation comes in, and then we'll have to close because it'll just cost too much and we'll end up losing money".

Mr Irwin: Thank you for your presentation. I think it is recognised that, although there are huge opportunities for the horticulture sector, it needs support. Is the current fruit and vegetables aid scheme fit for purpose? Does it not need to be upgraded, through consultation with you?

Mr Mulligan: I can speak only on behalf of the mushroom sector. It is a very good scheme for the mushroom sector, as you can see from the uptake: 92% of growers in Northern Ireland are in it. However, it can be improved, without a doubt.

Mr Irwin: You said that there has not been enough consultation with you to date. It is important that the Department works with you to look at the ways forward and any future scheme.

Mr Mulligan: Absolutely. The slight issue with that statement is that no decision has been made to end the scheme, so it is difficult to have consultation on a new scheme. Will a separate scheme be identified, outside of the three that we are being pointed to? There needs to be consultation with the industry on developing a new scheme, if that is the way it is going to go. However, as I said, we have a scheme, but it is currently under review, and we do not know whether it is going to end. We are being directed towards three other schemes that we do not believe apply to us. The whole uncertainty around that is the problem. We would like to have the extension, keep the scheme going, work with DAERA to try to develop the scheme better for Northern Ireland, and try to promote the scheme better in Northern Ireland so that all of horticulture is in it.

Mr T Buchanan: My question has already been answered, but we have heard a lot of things today, including about the Bill, so I am going to ask the question again anyway, just to put it on record. The mushroom sector feels as though it cannot support the Bill as it stands because of its concerns about it. What are the one or two fundamental issues that need to be included in the Bill to allow the mushroom sector to accept it?

Mr Dallas: We had meetings with the Minister and all to discuss the Bill and the need for it. At that stage, it was our understanding that a new support mechanism was coming in. We understood the need for the Bill if we wanted to adapt a scheme to Northern Ireland, make improvements and make changes. There was no issue with the Bill coming in. It was explained to us that that was why the Bill was needed, which was fine.

Our issue is that, since those initial meetings, all that has happened is that the Bill has progressed but there has been no consultation or further action on the replacement scheme, the development of which we, and the whole horticulture sector, thought we would be included in. As Andrew said, we are still more than willing to do that. All that has happened is that three new pilot schemes have been put in place that were developed, as far as we know, without consultation with the sector, and which we feel are more CAFRE learning-and-development orientated. Again, we have no problem with that. Certainly, the pilots will have a benefit, but they are not a replacement for the commercial support scheme, the development of which we were led to believe the Bill was being brought in to allow.

Mr Mulligan: Tom, first, the term "discretionary" needs to be removed, and, secondly, we want the funding to be ring-fenced for the sector and that we continue with the fruit and veg scheme until a suitable replacement is designed with industry.

Ms Kelly: A scheme that allows us to be competitive as well.

Mr T Buchanan: What you are more or less saying is that the mushroom sector feels that it has been left behind with the introduction of the Bill.

Mr Dallas: We were led to believe that that would happen in tandem — this is the problem — with the new support scheme that was coming in. That is what we feel has not happened; the replacement scheme was supposed to happen along with the Bill, but there is no indication that any such scheme is coming down the line to us. We are now moving towards the conclusion that the Bill is being brought forward just for the cessation of the existing FVAS scheme, rather than for what we had believed, which was that it would allow the development of a suitable replacement scheme.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Certainly, there is a lot of uncertainty, fear and anxiety in the sector. It is our responsibility as a Committee to listen to you and bring those concerns to the Department, as John said a minute ago, to help you to get a bit of clarity and a clear steer from the Department. Will we make representations to the Department to highlight the concerns and look for a clear steer, as John said, and clarity from the Department on the way forward?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Thank you very much for taking time out this morning to come up here and brief the Committee. Listen, we will do our best to try to get some answers for you.

Mr Dallas: Thank you very much.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Take care. Thank you.